The tragic legacy of Darwin’s controversial speculations on evolution has led to terrible consequences taken to the deadliest extremes. One Race One Blood reveals the origins of these horrors, as well as the truth revealed in Scripture that God created only one race.

A significant number of Christians would claim that such “interracial” marriages directly violate God’s principles in the Bible and should not be allowed.

Does the Word of God really condemn the marriages mentioned above?
Is there ultimately any such thing as interracial marriage?

To answer these questions, we must first understand what the Bible and science teach about “race.”

What Constitutes a “Race”?

In the 1800s, before Darwinian
evolution was popularized, most
people, when talking about “races,”
would be referring to such groups as
the “English race,” “Irish race,” and so
on. However, this all changed in 1859
when Charles Darwin published his
book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life.

Darwinian evolution was (and still is1) inherently a racist philosophy,
teaching that different groups or “races” of people evolved at different times
and rates, so some groups are more like their apelike ancestors than others.
Leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould claimed, “Biological arguments for
racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of
magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”2

The Australian Aborigines, for instance, were considered the missing
links between the apelike ancestor and the rest of mankind.3 This resulted in
terrible prejudices and injustices towards the Australian Aborigines.4

At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians,
some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some
of the Negro tribes. Nothing, however, is perhaps more remarkable
in this respect, than that some of the wildest tribes in southern Asia
and eastern Africa have no trace whatever of the first foundations of all
human civilization, of family life, and marriage. They live together in
herds, like apes.6

Racist attitudes fueled by evolutionary thinking were largely responsible
for an African pygmy being displayed, along with an orangutan, in a cage in
the Bronx zoo.7 Indeed, Congo pygmies were once thought to be “small apelike,
elfish creatures” that “exhibit many ape-like features in their bodies.”8

As a result of Darwinian evolution, many people started thinking in
terms of the different people groups around the world representing different
“races,” but within the context of evolutionary philosophy. This has resulted
in many people today, consciously or unconsciously, having ingrained prejudices
against certain other groups of people.9

Scientists today admit that, biologically, there really is only one race of humans.

However, all human beings in the world today are classified as Homo
sapiens sapiens. Scientists today admit that, biologically, there really is only
one race of humans. For instance, a scientist at the Advancement of Science
Convention in Atlanta stated, “Race is a social construct derived mainly from
perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and it has no basic
biological reality.” This person went on to say, “Curiously enough, the idea
comes very close to being of American manufacture.”10

Reporting on research conducted on
the concept of race, ABC News stated,
“More and more scientists find that the
differences that set us apart are cultural,
not racial. Some even say that the word
race should be abandoned because it’s
meaningless.” The article went on to say
that “we accept the idea of race because it’s
a convenient way of putting people into
broad categories, frequently to suppress
them—the most hideous example was
provided by Hitler’s Germany. And racial
prejudice remains common throughout
the world.”11

In an article in the Journal of Counseling
and Development,12 researchers argued that
the term “race” is basically so meaningless that it should be discarded.

More recently, those working on mapping the human genome announced
“that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the
human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only
one race—the human race.”13

Personally, because of the influences of Darwinian evolution and the resulting
prejudices, I believe everyone (and especially Christians) should abandon
the term “race(s).” We could refer instead to the different “people groups”
around the world.

The Bible and “Race”

The Bible does not even use the word race in reference to people,14 but it
does describe all human beings
as being of “one blood” (Acts 17:26). This of course emphasizes
that we are all related, as
all humans are descendants of
the first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45),15 who was created
in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27).16 The Last Adam,
Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:45) also became a descendant
of Adam. Any descendant
of Adam can be saved because
our mutual relative by blood
(Jesus Christ) died and rose
again. This is why the gospel
can (and should) be preached
to all tribes and nations.

Can the Bible be used to justify racist atitudes?

The inevitable question arises, “If the Bible teaches all humans are the
same, where was the church during the eras of slavery and segregation? Doesn’t
the Bible actually condone the enslavement of a human being by another?”

Both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible mention slaves and slavery.
As with all other biblical passages, these must be understood in their
grammatical-historical context.

Dr. Walter Kaiser, former president of Gordon-Conwell Theological
Seminary and Old Testament scholar, states:

The laws concerning slavery in the Old Testament appear to function to
moderate a practice that worked as a means of loaning money for Jewish
people to one another or for handling the problem of the prisoners
of war. Nowhere was the institution of slavery as such condemned; but
then, neither did it have anything like the connotations it grew to have
during the days of those who traded human life as if it were a mere commodity
for sale. . . . In all cases the institution was closely watched and
divine judgment was declared by the prophets and others for all abuses
they spotted.17

Job recognized that all were equal before God, and all should be treated
as image-bearers of the Creator.

If I have despised the cause of my male or female servant when they
complained against me, what then shall I do when God rises up? When
He punishes, how shall I answer Him? Did not He who made me in
the womb make them? Did not the same One fashion us in the womb?
(Job 31:13–15)

In commenting on Paul’s remarks to the slaves in his epistles, Peter H.
Davids writes:

The church never adopted a rule that converts had to give up their
slaves. Christians were not under law but under grace. Yet we read
in the literature of the second century and later of many masters
who upon their conversion freed their slaves. The reality stands that
it is difficult to call a person a slave during the week and treat them
like a brother or sister in the church. Sooner or later the implications
of the kingdom they experienced in church seeped into the
behavior of the masters during the week. Paul did in the end create
a revolution, not one from without, but one from within, in which
a changed heart produced changed behavior and through that in
the end brought about social change. This change happened wherever
the kingdom of God was expressed through the church, so the world could see that faith in Christ really was a transformation of the whole person.18

The forced enslavement of another human being goes against the biblical teaching that all humans were created in the image of God and are of equal standing before Him.

Those consistently living out their Christian faith realize that the forced
enslavement of another human being goes against the biblical teaching that
all humans were created in the image of God and are of equal standing before
Him (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). Indeed, the most ardent abolitionists
during the past centuries were Bible-believing Christians. John Wesley, Granville
Sharp, William Wilberforce, Jonathan Edwards, Jr., and Thomas Clarkson
all preached against the evils of slavery and worked to bring about the
abolition of the slave trade in England and North America. Harriet Beecher
Stowe conveyed this message in her famous novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin. And of
course, who can forget the change in the most famous of slave traders? John
Newton, writer of “Amazing Grace,” eventually became an abolitionist after
his conversion to Christianity, when he embraced the truth of Scripture.

“Racial” Differences

But some people think there must be different races of people because
there appear to be major differences between various groups, such as skin
color and eye shape.

The truth . . . is that these so-called “racial characteristics” are only minor variations among people groups.

The truth, though, is that these so-called “racial characteristics” are only
minor variations among people groups. If one were to take any two people
anywhere in the world, scientists have found that the basic genetic differences
between these two people would typically be around 0.2 percent—even if
they came from the same people group.19 But these so-called “racial” characteristics
that people think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.)
“account for only 0.012 percent of human biological variation.”20

Dr. Harold Page Freeman, chief executive, president, and director of surgery
at North General Hospital in Manhattan, reiterates, “If you ask what
percentage of your genes is reflected in your external appearance, the basis
by which we talk about race, the answer seems to be in the range of 0.01
percent.”21

In other words, the so-called “racial” differences are absolutely trivial—
overall, there is more variation within any group than there is
between one group and another. If a white person is looking for a tissue match for an organ
transplant, for instance, the best match may come from a black person, and
vice versa. ABC News claims, “What the facts show is that there are differences
among us, but they stem from culture, not race.”22

The only reason many people think these differences are major is because
they’ve been brought up in a culture that has taught them to see the differences
this way. Dr. Douglas C. Wallace, professor of molecular genetics at
Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, stated, “The criteria that
people use for race are based entirely on external features that we are programmed
to recognize.”23

If the Bible teaches and science confirms that all are of the same human
race and all are related as descendants of Adam, then why are there such seemingly
great differences between us (for example, in skin color)? The answer,
again, comes with a biblically informed understanding of science.

Skin “Color”

Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow,
black and white, they are precious in His sight.

When Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid
them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14), He did not
distinguish between skin colors. In fact, scientists have discovered that there
is one major pigment, called melanin, that produces our skin color. There are
two main forms of melanin: eumelanin (brown to black) and pheomelanin
(red to yellow). These combine to give us the particular shade of skin that
we have.24

Melanin is produced by melanocytes, which are cells in the bottom layer
of the epidermis. No matter what our shade of skin, we all have approximately
the same concentration of melanocytes in our bodies. Melanocytes insert
melanin into melanosomes, which transfer the melanin into other skin cells,
which are cabaple of dividing (stem cells), primarily in the lowest layer of the
epidermis. According to one expert,

The melanosomes (tiny melanin-packaging units) are slightly larger
and more numerous per cell in dark-skinned than light skinned people.
They also do not degrade as readily, and disperse into adjacent skin cells
to a higher degree.25

In the stem cells, the pigment
serves its function as it forms a
little dark umbrella over each
nucleus. The melanin protects
the epidermal cells from being
damaged by sunlight. In people
with lighter shades of skin, much
of the pigment is lost after these
cells divide and their daughter
cells move up in the epidermis to
form the surface dead layer—the
stratum corneum.

Geneticists have found
that four to six genes, each with
multiple alleles (or variations), control the amount and type of melanin
produced. Because of this, a wide variety of skin shades exist. In fact, it is
quite easy for one couple to produce a wide range of skin shades in just one
generation, as will be shown below.

Inheritance

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the molecule of heredity that is passed
from parents to child. In humans, the child inherits 23 chromosomes from
each parent (the father donates 23 through his sperm, while the mother donates
23 through her egg). At the moment of conception, these chromosomes
unite to form a unique combination of DNA and control much of what
makes the child an individual. Each chromosome pair contains hundreds of
genes, which regulate the physical development of the child. Note that no
new genetic information is generated at conception, but a new combination
of already-existing genetic information is formed.

To illustrate the basic genetic principles involved in determining skin
shade, we’ll use a simplified explanation,26 with just two genes controlling the
production of melanin. Let’s say that the A and B versions of the genes code
for a lot of melanin, while the a and b versions code for a small amount of
melanin.

If the father’s sperm carried
the AB version and the mother’s
ovum carried the AB, the child
would be AABB, with a lot of
melanin, and thus very dark
skin. Should both parents carry
the ab version, the child would
be aabb, with very little melanin,
and thus very light skin. If
the father carries AB (very dark
skin) and the mother carries ab
(very light skin), the child will
be AaBb, with a middle brown
shade of skin. In fact, the majority of the world’s population has a middle
brown skin shade.

A simple exercise with a Punnet Square shows that if each parent has
a middle brown shade of skin (AaBb), the combinations that they could
produce result in a wide variety of skin shades in just one generation. Based
on the skin colors seen today, we can infer that Adam and Eve most likely
would have had a middle brown skin color. Their children, and children’s
children, could have ranged from very light to very dark.

No one really has red, or yellow, or black skin. We all have the same basic
color, just different shades of it. We all share the same pigments—our bodies
just have different combinations of them.27

Melanin also determines eye color. If the iris of the eye has a larger
amount of melanin, it will be brown. If the iris has a little melanin, the eye
will be blue. (The blue color in blue eyes results from the way light scatters off
of the thin layer of brown-colored melanin.)

Hair color is also influenced by the production of melanin. Brown to black
hair results from a greater production of melanin, while lighter hair results from
less melanin. Those with red hair have a mutation in one gene that causes a greater
proportion of the reddish form of melanin (pheomelanin) to be produced.28

DNA also controls the basic shape of our eyes. Individuals whose DNA
codes for an extra layer of adipose tissue around the eyes have almond-shaped
eyes (this is common among Asian people groups). All people groups have
adipose tissue around the eyes, some simply have more or less.

Origin of People Groups

Those with darker skin tend to live in warmer climates, while those with
lighter skin tend to live in colder climates. Why are certain characteristics
more prominent in some areas of the world?

We know that Adam and Eve were the first two people. Their descendants
filled the earth. However, the world’s population was reduced to eight during
the Flood of Noah. From these eight individuals have come all the tribes and
nations. It is likely that the skin shade of Noah and his family was middle
brown. This would enable his sons and their wives to produce a variety of
skin shades in just one generation. Because there was a common language and
everybody lived in the same general vicinity, barriers that may have prevented
their descendants from freely intermarrying weren’t as great as they are today.
Thus, distinct differences in features and skin color in the population weren’t
as prevalent as they are today.

In Genesis 11 we read of the rebellion at the Tower of Babel. God judged
this rebellion by giving each family group a different language. This made it
impossible for the groups to understand each other, and so they split apart,
each extended family going its own way, and finding a different place to live.
The result was that the people were scattered over the earth.29

If we were to travel back in time to Babel, and mix up the people into completely different family groups, then people groups with completely different characteristics might result.

Because of the new language and geographic barriers, the groups no longer
freely mixed with other groups, and the result was a splitting of the gene pool.
Different cultures formed, with certain features becoming predominant within
each group. The characteristics of each became more and more prominent as new
generations of children were born. If we were to travel back in time to Babel, and
mix up the people into completely different family groups, then people groups
with completely different characteristics might result. For instance, we might
find a fair-skinned group with tight, curly dark hair that has blue, almond-shaped
eyes. Or a group with very dark skin, blue eyes, and straight brown hair.30

Some of these (skin color, eye shape, and so on) became general
characteristics of each particular people group through various selection
pressures (environmental, sexual, etc.) and/or mutation.31 For example,
because of the protective factor of melanin, those with darker skin would
have been more likely to survive in areas where sunlight is more intense
(warmer, tropical areas near the equator), as they are less likely to suffer from
diseases such as skin cancer. Those with lighter skin lack the melanin needed
to protect them from the harmful UV rays, and so may have been more likely
to die before they were able to reproduce. UVA radiation also destroys the
B vitamin folate, which is necessary for DNA synthesis in cell division. Low
levels of folate in pregnant women can lead to defects in the developing baby.
Again, because of this, lighter-skinned individuals may be selected against in
areas of intense sunlight.

On the flip side, melanin works as a natural sunblock, limiting the sunlight’s
ability to stimulate the liver to produce vitamin D, which helps the
body absorb calcium and build strong bones. Since those with darker skin
need more sunlight to produce vitamin D, they may not have been as able
to survive as well in areas of less sunlight (northern, colder regions) as their
lighter-skinned family members, who don’t need as much sunlight to produce
adequate amounts of vitamin D. Those lacking vitamin D are more likely to
develop diseases such as rickets (which is associated with a calcium deficiency),
which can cause slowed growth and bone fractures. It is known that when
those with darker skin lived in England during the Industrial Revolution,
they were quick to develop rickets because of the general lack of sunlight.32

Of course, these are generalities. Exceptions occur, such as in the case
of the darker-skinned Inuit tribes living in cold northern regions. However,
their diet consists of fish, the oil of which is a ready source of vitamin D,
which could account for their survival in this area.

Is there anything in the Bible that speaks clearly against men and women from different people groups marrying?

Real science in the present fits with the biblical view that all people are
rather closely related—there is only one race biologically. Therefore, to return
to our original question, there is, in essence, no such thing as interracial
marriage. So we are left with this—is there anything in the Bible that speaks
clearly against men and women from different people groups marrying?

The Dispersion at Babel

Note that the context of Genesis 11 makes it clear that the reason for
God’s scattering the people over the earth was that they had united in rebellion
against Him. Some Christians point to this event in an attempt to provide a
basis for their arguments against so-called interracial marriage. They believe
that this passage implies that God is declaring that people from different people
groups can’t marry so that the nations are kept apart. However, there is
no such indication in this passage that what is called “interracial marriage” is
condemned. Besides, there has been so much mixing of people groups over the
years, that it would be impossible for every human being today to trace their
lineage back to know for certain which group(s) they are descended from.

We need to understand that the sovereign creator God is in charge of the
nations of this world. Paul makes this very clear in Acts 17:26. Some people
erroneously claim this verse to mean that people from different nations
shouldn’t marry. However, this passage has nothing to do with marriage. As
John Gill makes clear in his classic commentary, the context is that God is
in charge of all things—where, how, and for how long any person, tribe, or
nation will live, prosper, and perish.33

In all of this, God is working to redeem for Himself a people who are
one in Christ. The Bible makes clear in Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11, and Romans 10:12–13 that in regard to salvation, there is no distinction between
male or female or Jew or Greek. In Christ, any separation between people is
broken down. As Christians, we are one in Christ and thus have a common
purpose—to live for Him who made us. This oneness in Christ is vitally important
to understanding marriage.

Purpose of Marriage

Malachi 2:15 informs us that an important purpose of marriage is to produce
godly offspring—progeny that are trained in the ways of the Lord. Jesus
(in Matthew 19) and Paul (in Ephesians 5) make it clear that when a man
and woman marry, they become one flesh (because they were one flesh historically—
Eve was made from Adam). Also, the man and woman must be one
spiritually so they can fulfill the command to produce godly offspring.

This is why Paul states in 2 Corinthians 6:14, “Do not be
unequally yoked together with
unbelievers. For what fellowship
has righteousness with lawlessness?
And what communion has light
with darkness?”

According to the Bible then,
which of the following marriages in
the picture on the right does God
counsel against entering into?

The answer is obvious—number
3. According to the Bible, the
priority in marriage is that a Christian
should marry only a Christian.

Sadly, there are some Christian homes where the parents are more
concerned about their children not marrying someone from another “race”
than whether or not they are marrying a Christian. When Christians marry
non-Christians, it negates the spiritual (not the physical) oneness in marriage,
resulting in negative consequences for the couple and their children.34

Of course, every couple needs to understand and embrace the biblical
roles prescribed for each family member. Throughout the Scriptures our special
roles and responsibilities are revealed. Consider these piercing passages
directed to fathers:

The father shall make known Your truth to the children (Isaiah 38:19).

Fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in
the training and admonition of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4)

For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and
his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do
righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what
He has spoken to him. (Genesis 18:19)

These are just a few of the many verses that mention fathers in regard to
training children. Additionally, the writer of Psalm 78 continually admonishes
fathers to teach their children so they’ll not forget to teach their children, so
that they might not forget what God has done and keep His commandments.
This includes building within their children a proper biblical worldview and
providing them with answers to the questions the world asks about God and
the Bible (as this book does). It also includes shepherding and loving his wife
as Christ loved the church.

Of course, just as God made the role of the man clear, He has also made
His intentions known regarding the role of a godly wife. In the beginning, God
fashioned a woman to complete what was lacking in Adam, that she might
become his helper, that the two of them would truly become one (Genesis 2:15–25). In other Bible passages the woman is encouraged to be a woman of
character, integrity, and action (e.g., Proverbs 31:10–31). Certainly mothers
should also be involved in teaching their children spiritual truths.

These roles are true for couples in every tribe and nation.

Rahab and Ruth

The examples of Rahab and Ruth help us understand how God views the
issue of marriage between those who are from different people groups but
trust in the true God.

Rahab was a Canaanite. These Canaanites had an ungodly culture and
were descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham. Remember, Canaan was cursed
because of his obvious rebellious nature. Sadly, many people state that Ham
was cursed—but this is not true.36 Some have even said that this (non-existent)
curse of Ham resulted in the black “races.”37 This is absurd and is
the type of false teaching that has reinforced and justified prejudices against
people with dark skin.

In the genealogy in Matthew 1, it is traditionally understood that the
same Rahab is listed here as being in the line leading to Christ. Thus, Rahab, a
descendant of Ham, must have married an Israelite (descended from Shem).
Since this was clearly a union approved by God, it underlines the fact that the
particular “people group” she came from was irrelevant—what mattered was
that she trusted in the true God of the Israelites.

The same can be said of Ruth, who as a Moabitess also married an Israelite
and is also listed in the genealogy in Matthew 1 that leads to Christ. Prior
to her marriage, she had expressed faith in the true God (Ruth 1:16).

When Rahab and Ruth became children of God, there was no longer
any barrier to Israelites marrying them, even though they were from different
people groups.

Real Biblical “Interracial” Marriage

If one wants to use the term “interracial,” then the real interracial marriage
that God says we should not enter into is when a child of the Last Adam
(one who is a new creation in Christ—a Christian) marries one who is an unconverted
child of the First Adam (one who is dead in trespasses and sin—a
non-Christian).38

Cross-Cultural Problems

Because many people groups have been separated since the Tower
of Babel, they have developed many cultural differences. If two people
from very different cultures marry, they can have a number of communication
problems, even if both are Christians. Expectations regarding
relationships with members of the extended family, for example, can also
differ. Even people from different English-speaking countries can have
communication problems because words may have different meanings.
Counselors should go through this in detail, anticipating the problems
and giving specific examples, as some marriages have failed because of
such cultural differences. However, such problems have nothing to do
with genetics or “race.”

Conclusion

There is no biblical justification for claiming that people from different
so-called races (best described as people groups) should not marry.

The biblical basis for marriage makes it clear that a Christian should
marry only a Christian.

When Christians legalistically impose nonbiblical ideas, such as no interracial
marriage onto their culture, they are helping to perpetuate prejudices
that have often arisen from evolutionary influences. If we are really honest,
in countries like America, the main reason for Christians being against interracial
marriage is, in most instances, really because of skin color.

The church could greatly relieve the tensions over racism . . . if only the leaders would teach biblical truths about our shared ancestry.

The church could greatly relieve the tensions over racism (particularly in
countries like America), if only the leaders would teach biblical truths about
our shared ancestry: all people are descended from one man and woman;
all people are equal before God; all are sinners in need of salvation; all need
to build their thinking on God’s Word and judge all their cultural aspects
accordingly; all need to be one in Christ and put an end to their rebellion
against their Creator.

Christians must think about marriage as God thinks about each one of
us. When the prophet Samuel went to anoint the next king of Israel, he
thought the oldest of Jesse’s sons was the obvious choice due to his outward
appearance. However, we read in 1 Samuel 16:7, “But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have
refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the
outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.’” God doesn’t look at
our outward biological appearance; He looks on our inward spiritual state.
And when considering marriage, couples should look on the inside spiritual
condition of themselves and each other because it is true that what’s on the
inside, spiritually, is what really matters.

The New Answers Book

The New Answers Book is packed with biblical answers to over 25 of the most important questions on creation/evolution and the Bible. Richly illustrated with photos, charts, and graphs, this book is a must-read for everyone who desires to better understand the world in which they live. Perhaps the most helpful benefit is that each chapter is “stand alone” and can be read in any order.

Of course, melanin is not the only factor that determines skin shade: blood vessels close
to the skin can produce a reddish tinge, while extra layers of adipose tissue (fat) in the
skin yield a yellowish tinge. Exposure to the sun can cause increased melanin production,
thus darkening skin, but only to a certain point. Other pigments also affect skin shade but
generally have very little bearing on how light or dark the skin will be. The major provider of
skin color is melanin.

The actual genetics involved are much more complicated than this simplified explanation.
There are 4 to 6 genes with multiples alleles (versions) of each gene that operate under
incomplete dominance, that is, they work together to produce an individual’s particular skin
shade. However, simplifying the explanation does not take away from the point being made.

Albinism results from a genetic mutation which prevents the usual production of melanin.

As they went, the family groups took with them the knowledge that had been passed
to them about the creation and Flood events. Although these accounts have been changed
over time, they reflect the true account found in the Bible. For more information, see answersingenesis.org/go/legends.

This assumes that each trait is independently inherited, which may not always be the case.
Although there are many instances in which a certain trait shows up in a person of a different
ethnic group (e.g., almond-shaped eyes in a woman with very dark skin, or blue eyes in a
man with tightly curled brown hair and tan skin).

For more on how selection and mutations operate, see chapter 22 in this book.

See note on Acts 17:26, in John Gill, D.D., An exposition of the Old and New Testament, London: printed for Mathews and Leigh, 18 Strand, by W. Clowes, Northumberland-Court,
1809. Edited, revised, and updated by Larry Pierce, 1994–1995 for Online Bible CD-ROM.

It is true that in some exceptional instances when a Christian has married a non-Christian,
the non-Christian spouse, by the grace of God, has become a Christian. This is a praise point
but it does not negate the fact that Scripture indicates that it should not have been entered
into in the first place. This does not mean that the marriage is not actually valid, nor does it
dilute the responsibilities of the marital union—see also 1 Corinthians 7:12–14, where the
context is of one spouse becoming a Christian after marriage.

See Genesis 9:18–27. Canaan, the youngest of Ham’s sons, received Noah’s curse. Why? The descendants of Canaan were some of the wickedest people on earth. For example, the people
of Sodom and Gomorrah were judged for their sexual immorality and rebellion. It may be that
Ham’s actions toward his father (Genesis 9:22) had sexual connotations, and Noah saw this
same sin problem in Canaan and understood that Canaan’s descendants would also act in these
sinful ways. (The Bible clearly teaches that the unconfessed sin of one generation is often greater
in the next generation.) The curse on Canaan has nothing to do with skin color but rather
serves as a warning to fathers to train their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
We need to deal with our own sin problems and train our children to deal with theirs.

For example: “We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later
of Ham) were cursed with what we call Negroid racial characteristics” (Bruce McConkie,
Apostle of the Mormon Council of 12, Mormon Doctrine, p. 554, 1958); “The curse which
Noah pronounced upon Canaan was the origin of the black race” (The Golden Age, The
Watchtower [now called Awake!], p. 702, July 24, 1929).

Examples of such “mixed marriages” and their negative consequences can be seen in
Nehemiah 9 and Nehemiah 10, and Numbers 25.